LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Friday rejected a plea to suspend the notification of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) barred on the live coverage of the court proceedings on news channels and sought replies from the Perma and others till May 29.
The court observed that the questions raised in the petitions were important, requiring determination by interpreting various articles of the Constitution and the provisions of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2002 and the code of conduct of the authority.
The court; therefore, asked the Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) to assist the court on the points raised in the petitions on next hearing.
The petitioners, Samra Malik and Hafiz Muhammad Zainul Abdin, had approached the court against the impugned Pemra notification.
Another petition of a bar member Nadeem Sarwar, has not yet been fixed for hearing.
Earlier, Pemra’s counsel questioned the maintainability of the petitions and argued that against the impugned directive, a remedy of appeal under the section 30-A of the 2002 ordinance was available before the relevant high court.
He submitted that as the Islamabad High Court had already taken cognisance of the matter and notices had also been issued; therefore, as per settled law, the petitions in hand were not maintainable.
He further stated that directives/ guidelines including the impugned directive to the licensees/ channels could be issued under regulation 18 of the Television, Broadcast, Station Operation Regulation, 2012 framed under section 39 of the Ordinance.
A deputy attorney general also reiterated the arguments of Pemra’s counsel and added that the impugned directive was reasonable and imperative to ensure fair adjudication of pending matters in courts.
He said that Pemra had issued the notification in accordance with the law.
He argued that since Pemra’s head office was in Islamabad, the jurisdiction for the case lay with the IHC rather than the LHC.
The petitioner’s counsel; however, replied that the LHC had jurisdiction to hear the petition. He also said the Pemra was a federal agency; therefore, the LHC also had a concurrent jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
He also claimed that no complaint had been made to Pemra that sought a ban on airing court proceedings on television. He asserted that TV channels and newspapers always follow the Pemra rules and regulations.
The counsel said, if court proceedings are misreported, the Pemra has a council of complaints. In case of misreporting of the proceedings, the concerned court can also proceed with contempt of court, the counsel added.
The counsel said so far, no case of incorrect reporting has surfaced and if a court asks not to air the remarks it is obliged.
The counsel said that Pemra's ban is in violation of Article 10-A, 19 and 19-A of the Constitution of Pakistan.
He asked the court to declare the impugned notification null and void, and suspend it the disposal of the petitions.
The court after hearing both the sides at length rejected the plea to suspend the Pemra notification and issued notices to the respondents.
According to a notification issued by the Pemra on Tuesday last, television channels were directed to refrain from airing tickers/ headlines with regard to court proceedings and shall only report the written orders of court.
However, where the court proceedings were broadcast live, the proceedings may be reported, the notification had said.
It had also said that all satellite TV channel licences were directed to not air content, including commentary, opinions or suggestions, about the potential fate of subjudice matters which could prejudice their determination by a court or tribunal could be aired.
Advocate Azhar Siddique, counsel for one of the petitioners, responded to the government’s objections, saying there were no proceedings initiated, which culminated into the impugned ban; therefore, an appeal under the ordinance was neither available nor adequate alternative remedy.
Justice Sheikh issued notices to the respondents for submission of the replies by May 29.
The judge also issued a notice to the attorney general for Pakistan to render assistance to the court on the matter.
The petitioners pleaded that the Pemra had been acting under political pressure of the government, which was already hostile to media rights as guaranteed under articles 19 & 19A of the Constitution.
They said the Pemra committed gross illegality by not investigating and thoroughly examining the issue in accordance with the touchstone of the relevant laws.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024